In 2E, the bard was the consummate adventurer. He was the jack-of-all trades, master of none---a guy compelled to wander the world and see and do everything. He was a competent fighter who could learn to use any weapon, a competent thief with decent access to thieving abilities, and a competent wizard who could learn any wizard spell he could cast. That he was an artist was only natural from a wandering, talented soul like that.
Then in 3E he became. . . corny.
The old school bard could cast spells because he was a renaissance man who had studied a bit of magic. The new bard has magic spring spontaneously from the divine artistry of his soul. It's silly.
I'm not pushing any major mechanical change here, just a change in flavor. (Unless people really want mechanical changes.):
1. The bard's magic is ordinary arcane magic. It comes from occult study, just like the wizard's. His mechanics are different than the wizard's because he's a dilettante. He doesn't learn very many spells. The spells he learns are less complicated; they don't manipulate cosmic energies or necromantic forces. So he doesn't have to memorize them beforehand.
2. Remove the line which says that the verbal component of bardic spells are singing, poetry, and the like. They can still all have verbal components, just make them ordinary arcane chanting. Since his verbal components are the same as any wizard or sorcerer, let him take Silent Spell
3. The bard would remain a spontaneous caster. His spell list wouldn't change. He could still only know a set number of spells.
But he would write down the spells he learned in a spell book, like any caster who had to study. He would study it in the morning to review his spells, but that would be the only mechanical change in how his magic worked.
4. For those that still want to tap the supernatural powers of music, there are a number of nice prestige classes that do just that.
Hey thats a pretty nice idea! I like it.
I even can think of another change here:
Let the bard decide wich spells he wants to be able to cast when he memorizes his spells. He would "memorize" a small number of spells to have available to be cast spontanousely. But he can decide each day wich spells theese are.
I think based on his very limited list of spells this would not be too much of a bump.
Otherwise almost all Bards have nearly the same lists of spells known, cause there is a short list of spells wich you can use in almost every situation, wich means some of the spells on the bard list will never seen in a game.
It's a good idea. I'm all for the bard as a jack-of-all trades, master-of-none style character instead of a wandering minstrel.
From reading the title, I thought you were suggesting the Bard as a fighter/thief/druid prestige class!
From reading the title, I thought you were suggesting the Bard as a fighter/thief/druid prestige class!
That's what the Fochlucan Lyrist tries to duplicate. What a great PrC!
But he would write down the spells he learned in a spell book, like any caster who had to study. He would study it in the morning to review his spells, but that would be the only mechanical change in how his magic worked.
Why make it a spell-book? Why not make it either an arcane or divine focus? Let the player work out how their character came to the magic, just make there be a focus. Let a musical instrument or a song be that focus. That way, for the musical bards, they can still sing their songs. For the others, they can page through a book or strike a quick bargain with a handy God.
I'd say that helps keep the flavor without forcing the player to be locked into one mode.
Some of this is a repost, but please no. By definition, a bard is a musician/storyteller/performer. The 2e bard (I have no familiarity with the 1e bard) was a lame cross between rogue/wizard/fighter without the uniqueness of a 3e bard. I like the idea of bardic magic manifesting as a natural extension of their artistry. It's their thing. I mean, I don't see a wanderer and storyteller sitting down with a spellbook memorizing formulae. I see them as exciting and enigmatic personalities who manifest their energy in a variety of ways. They're like the ADD kids of the D&D universe, without the mind-numbing drugs.
I'm not pushing any major mechanical change here, just a change in flavor.
This.
I wouldn't take it quite as far as you have, though. Personally, I like the concept of music as magic. Go pick up your copy of the Silmarillion (you know you have one). Middle Earth was created by music. There are cultures where the elders bless their people by chanting song. I have yet to find a good reference to magic streaming forth while somebody strums a harp and primps himself, however.
If we remove the stigma of the bard as the embodiment of all that is "corny," as you said (and I agree ... that is where it currently stands), there are some great concepts that come out of the class. I even see the jack-of-all-trades as being part of this. By melding with the harmonies surrounding the character, they are able to utilize abilities that others would never be able to attempt.
|
I'd like to suggest a compromise between the artsy magic and spellbooks.
Quite simply I greatly prefer the idea that a bard is a renaissance man (or woman), but them dragging dozens of spellbooks around is kinda ridiculous. Instead a class feature which allows them to encode spells into songs. Where a wizard needs to consult their spellbooks, a bard sings to themselves (for the words) and plays their instrument (for the gestures) of their spells. Let them record a number of spells equal to their rating in Perform skills at a time, and still use spellbooks.
...Then make doing that a Feat for Wizards.
I guess my recollection of the 2E bard is somewhat different. I recall that a bard in 2E wasn't any one thing. But rather he could be a troubadour, a jounguleur, a Norse skald, a dwarf chanter, a poet, a lyricist, or any number of things. But generally at the base of all of it was the music. If anything 3e allowed for less diversity in a bard, but still managed to keep it tied to the music.
I don't advocate changing this.
Bards are musical characters.
What is described above sounds more like a wizard-rogue multi-class.
Keep with the music.
CJ
Bards are musical characters.
What is described above sounds more like a wizard-rogue multi-class.
Keep with the music.
If they are musical characters, something must seriously be done to fix Bardic music, fluffwise, because it drives me up the wall.
|
From reading the title, I thought you were suggesting the Bard as a fighter/thief/druid prestige class!
Yeah, that's more like the real old-school bard.
What is described above sounds more like a wizard-rogue multi-class.
As mentioned by hogarth, the real old-school bard (1e) was in fact a fighter-thief-druid Prestige class.
If they are musical characters, something must seriously be done to fix Bardic music, fluffwise, because it drives me up the wall.
Agreed. The best idea I've seen in a while was a Half-Orc Skald (of sorts) who played the drums furiously in combat while chanting. His attacks? Why, drum mallets to the skulls of the enemy, all in time to the music. Not technically allowed by the rules, but I let it slide because of the great image.
As mentioned by hogarth, the real old-school bard (1e) was in fact a fighter-thief-druid Prestige class.
Yep. Sort of. The 1e bard was a freakin' bad*ss. You couldn't take a level of bard until around 7th level (if I recall) at a minimum. And while you were getting bard abilities you were also getting druid levels and abilities. This was a prestige class before there were prestige classes.
I'm certainly NOT advocating going back to the 1e bard -- though I can imagine that some folks might pine for those days (I lived through those days and don't).
I do think that the bard (and rogue and monk) all need more versatility. Yes bards should still be tied to their ability to perform, but why not allow more variety in what they can do with their performances at earlier levels. In fact I would sooner see bards lose ALL spells in order to pick up some more interesting music/perform effects (but that isn't very backwards compatible).
How about some bardic performances that aren't so combat-centric?
CJ
Music can hurt; Exiern
While musical Bards have their place, I would like other options.
The Factotum in Dungeonscape is a great "Jack of All Trades" Bard. Just wish it had a better name.
The Akashic in Monte's Arcana Unearthed is a great Psionic Bard.
But I would like to see more, Miroku in the InuYasha anime comes across as a Divine/Monk-like Bard.
For the Gypsy inclined, how about a Curse Weaver Bard, focused on one type of magic, Baleful!
Maybe some variant class options that would allow you to trade out one of the Three class combo of Fighter/Mage/Thief for another class?
Hey, guys, thanks for all the responses. It's great to see that so many other people are passionate about the bard.
I never said the bard wouldn't be an artist. Bardic music will still be there, guys! But as brotherwilli said in a different post, many people want the bard for versitility, not to be a musician.
Why make it a spell-book? Why not make it either an arcane or divine focus? Let the player work out how their character came to the magic, just make there be a focus. Let a musical instrument or a song be that focus. That way, for the musical bards, they can still sing their songs. For the others, they can page through a book or strike a quick bargain with a handy God.
I'd say that helps keep the flavor without forcing the player to be locked into one mode.
This is good stuff. Anyone who wants their magic to come from art can still play it that way. But people who have other desires can have it their way, too.
For instance, an actor. His bardic music takes the form of rousing monologues from great plays. He studies magic so he can add illusionary special effects to his productions, and fencing because everyone likes a fight scene. Or a wanderer who lives by his wits. He learned some magic because it's useful, and how to fight for the same reason. He knows a little bit of everything. And he always has a useful anecdote, a funny story, or a clever quip to sooth tempers, keep his firends motivated, or prick overblown foes. Niether is a musician, but both are great bards.
Some of this is a repost, but please no. By definition, a bard is a musician/storyteller/performer. The 2e bard (I have no familiarity with the 1e bard) was a lame cross between rogue/wizard/fighter without the uniqueness of a 3e bard. I like the idea of bardic magic manifesting as a natural extension of their artistry. It's their thing. I mean, I don't see a wanderer and storyteller sitting down with a spellbook memorizing formulae. I see them as exciting and enigmatic personalities who manifest their energy in a variety of ways. They're like the ADD kids of the D&D universe, without the mind-numbing drugs.
I'm sorry you feel that way about the 2E bard. It was my favorite class. Because it was so versatile, you go to do a little bit of everything.
My very first character was a 2E bard. He was a minstrel. During one adventure, we found the Spellbook of Tomorast, a powerful evil wizard, in a treasure trove, and it became my bard's spellbook. His magic was just magic, but I think it was much more interesting than magic music.
I think it's safer to say that the bard has always been poetic, rather than musical. 1E was, as others have said, a fighter/rogue/druid combination. It was all based in celtic-type society, with bards as the keepers of history and lore. Music plays a part in that, but just one part in the whole.
Quite simply I greatly prefer the idea that a bard is a renaissance man (or woman), but them dragging dozens of spellbooks around is kinda ridiculous.
Thanks for your input! I guess I figured one spellbook would be enough. By traditional spell-book rules, they would need less than 150 pages for their spellbook in their whole career.
Stripping down the Bard's flavor text is a good idea. The less flavor that the rules dictate, the more room there is left for originality and personalization.
-Matt
Stripping down the Bard's flavor text is a good idea. The less flavor that the rules dictate, the more room there is left for originality and personalization.
This is a tricky point. There is always room for originality, but there are those that do not have the framework for that originality. I have some nephews I intend to introduce to the game, through Pathfinder. If I hand them a book without much flavor text and say "be creative," I'm making it very difficult for them to understand what all of those tables mean. We need a solid framework - the flavor - for people to build from. Once they get to the point where they can come up with their own flavor, a reasonable DM will allow the flavor to be adjusted accordingly.
That said, I think some of the ideas presented here do that fairly well. It even encourages coming up with your own flavor. Brother Willi's suggestion that the bard has a focus does this; the wandering minstrel has his lute, the sage has the book of poetic saga, the arcane dabbler has a spellbook.
That said, I think some of the ideas presented here do that fairly well. It even encourages coming up with your own flavor. Brother Willi's suggestion that the bard has a focus does this; the wandering minstrel has his lute, the sage has the book of poetic saga, the arcane dabbler has a spellbook.
Yes, exactly! This is what I'm asking for. I think that the descriptions in front of the classes (I assume they're coming when the game actually leaves beta) can talk about the class' roles in the world and then offer a number of examples of archetypes and examples from history and fiction.
Game mechanics and flavor should aid you in creating a character who's yours, not lock you into a calcified role. That's what 3E started to do for us, and I think 4E's failure to do that is why an awful lot of us are here.
From reading the title, I thought you were suggesting the Bard as a fighter/thief/druid prestige class!That's what the Fochlucan Lyrist tries to duplicate. What a great PrC!
I thought the same about the fighter/thief/druid retread too!
That said, I'm assuming you're being ironic about the Fochlucan Lyrist, because I thought it was a ridiculous effort with nonsensical abilities. "Oh gosh, my mastery of bardic music allows me to ignore my druidic armour restrictions."
|
I tend to agree with this. The second edition bards usually had some sort of art that they adhered to, but that art could be anything from speechcraft to riddles and provided for some of my favorite characters. Ultimately, they were the face of the party and the details were a bit flexible especially for second edition.
When bards became completely encompassed in music and performance, I became somewhat disappointed in them even though I really loved that aspect. I always thought of da Vinci as being one of the consummate bards in our society. His art was a tool to his science and his science a tool for his art. Michelangelo, as well, had a multidisciplinary approach to life in much the way I see an alternate to bards. They are as great in the bardic tradition as Shakespeare, providing the pinnacle of their artistic craft, without being particularly musical. Even Shakespeare poetry was rarely short enough to spout in six seconds to give morale bonuses. He studied history, likely religion, and if you believe Dr. Who, held the key to the universe in his words.
I'd love to see the option of bards to be not just performance based but, also incorporating craft, or emphasizing knowledge into their main repertoire. The more options the better here. In first edition they were fighters(representing their ability to fight), thieves(showing their ability to do many things), and druids(to show their study of the natural world). I'd love to see these things further incorporated into the bardic class. Possibly adding something like domains of study which gives them access to a few simple powers and maybe expands their list of spells. You could even tie these to various attributes:
Combat - Strength
Artifice - Constitution
Talent - Dexterity
Knowledge - Intelligence
Nature - Wisdom
Performance - Charisma
I don't know. That might be dumb, but I'd really like to see a nice rewrite for the bard that takes them away from being so strictly attached to performance. I'd like performance to be an option, but not be so central to every character. I also think it would be nice to have these options crop up as you level and develop the character. Something that allows you to compensate for a perceived weakness as time goes on. I think something like that could do a lot to help the bard feel more heroic.
The tough part here is to not step on the toes of other players.It sucks to be highly specialized in something your class is supposed to be great at and a long comes a guy with similar specialization in another class who does everything to outshine your character concept and be generally better than you in every way(recently had this problem in a star wars campaign).
|
|
Some unique spells and feats aimed at presenting the musical side of this class could help this out without undue mechanics.
The Book of Eldritch Might did a fine job of showing how this can be done. And with Monte Cook on board for Paizo it shouldn't be too hard to work something into Pathfinder.
The Book of Eldritch Might II's Bard was tied even further into their music(though they were a hoot to play.) But it did give it a lot of flavor. Bardic Knowledge seemed almost an afterthought. I like Monte's pension to give more options and less power. It makes for a really interesting play. I was always underpowered compared to other party members but I had a lot of fun with that character and I could do some very interesting and unique things. I would have loved to have gotten her above 6th level.
Still, I'd love to see an option to make performance central to the character but I'd like there to be other options as well. I think it would refresh the much maligned bard.
I'm sorry you feel that way about the 2E bard. It was my favorite class. Because it was so versatile, you go to do a little bit of everything.My very first character was a 2E bard. He was a minstrel. During one adventure, we found the Spellbook of Tomorast, a powerful evil wizard, in a treasure trove, and it became my bard's spellbook. His magic was just magic, but I think it was much more interesting than magic music.
I think it's safer to say that the bard has always been poetic, rather than musical. 1E was, as others have said, a fighter/rogue/druid combination. It was all based in celtic-type society, with bards as the keepers of history and lore. Music plays a part in that, but just one part in the whole.
The thing is, what you're describing is an arcane trickster with a perform skill. There's nothing wrong with that type of character, but it just doesn't have its own niche the way the 3.5 bard does. I mean, really, you can flavor it the way you want. It sounds like the only mechanical change you'd like to implement is a spellbook, and I just don't see this making as much sense as the current system.
If they are musical characters, something must seriously be done to fix Bardic music, fluffwise, because it drives me up the wall.Bards are musical characters.
What is described above sounds more like a wizard-rogue multi-class.
Keep with the music.
I have to admit, I used to feel this way, but two things changed my mind: Order of the stick and having a PC who gives cheeseball monologues. I've come to the realization that, yes, singing at your enemy is incredibly goofy, but that that maybe a bard is supposed to be a little bit silly. Maybe it's not supposed to be a serious hardass the way a barbarian and a rogue might be.
I will say, while I enjoy the freedom of spontaneous casting, I dislike being limited to using just the 3.5 Bard's spell-list (the notable exception being that they can use the cure spells).
There have been more than a few times when I've used the Prestigous Bard from UA so that I could still learn/cast Wizard spells like in 2nd Ed.
The thing is, what you're describing is an arcane trickster with a perform skill. There's nothing wrong with that type of character, but it just doesn't have its own niche the way the 3.5 bard does.
Respectfully, what I describe is not remotely an arcane trickster. The arcane trickster is a specialized class. It has one purpose--to let you steal stuff with magic.
The bard is a jack-of-all-trades. It's purpose is to be very versitile. It's niche is that it has no niche.
I mean, really, you can flavor it the way you want.
That is the stated point of this thread, yes. Clearly many of us would like to see a change in flavor of the bard class to allow more of its potential to show. The bard can be many things other than a musician. He can be a con man, a sage, a poet, a spy, a dancer, a daredevil, a historian, an evangelist--the list goes on.
Still, I'd love to see an option to make performance central to the character but I'd like there to be other options as well. I think it would refresh the much maligned bard.
Agreed. Those of us with Celtic heritage probably have a soft spot for the fabled warrior-poets, whom I believe were the initial model for the 1st Ed. Bard.
I don't think anyone so far has expressed a wish to divorce the bard completely from music. I certainly don't want that. The Bard's performance abilities reinforce their charming, suave and cultured nature. But not all bards should be musicians to their core.
The rules as written allow a bard to walk away from the musical abilities if they want to put their skill points into something other than perform. The problem is that there's nothing to fill in the gap. Once Bardic Music is gone, the Bard is a lightly-armored caster with an OK BAB. They definitely need something more.
The bard can be many things other than a musician. He can be a con man, a sage, a poet, a spy, a dancer, a daredevil, a historian, an evangelist--the list goes on.
My favorite bard remains a Cormyrian Spy trying to infiltrate the Zhentarim. He had more moxie than any other character I've seen.
Sadly, he just didn't have enough hitpoints.
|
|
The bard can be many things other than a musician. He can be a con man, a sage, a poet, a spy, a dancer, a daredevil, a historian, an evangelist--the list goes on.My favorite bard remains a Cormyrian Spy trying to infiltrate the Zhentarim. He had more moxie than any other character I've seen.
Sadly, he just didn't have enough hitpoints.
My favorite bard was a 1st edition bard we imported to second edition with a few changes. His name was Cailan and he was a roguish swashbuckler type. Sweet guy who had to leave his family to lead an old evil through to another dimension but he came back! =) It killed me when I saw Caydan Cailean, it was too close to my original bard.
Who else fondly remembers a bard who was a more than just a minstrel?
I remember playing a bard with a kit called The Blade, he was an entertainer who's instrument was weaponry. He did juggling, and knife throws, and swrod tricks. I don't really feel like his magic came from the immense artistry of his sword swallowing.
I also remember playing a kit called the Thespian. It had the power to fake enemies out through acting. You pretended to cast some horribly dire spell and send them running, and if you did actually cast some flashy spell while you were doing it, you got a bonus.
The spirit of this thread has been taken up in a new mechanics thread, The Bard as Both a Musician and Jack Of All Trades. It's got some great ideas, so check it out and weigh in.
As mentioned by hogarth, the real old-school bard (1e) was in fact a fighter-thief-druid Prestige class.
Hmmph. That was the newfangled AD&D bard. The real old-school bard, as printed in The Strategic Review in February 1976, page 11, was "a jack-of-all-trades . . . he is both an amateur thief and magic user as well as a good fighter."
The "old school bard" has been around for over 8 years now, as it is basically just a certain multiclass combo.
I support the current bard class's tie to performance, because that is what a bard is supposed to be. Bard doesn't mean "a guy who trained a bit of magic as a renaisance man and swordplay in a fencing school." Bard is a performer and creator of the arts. Musician, poet, the works.
I have no problems with expanding on bardic music, so any type of perform (maybe even things that can work as perform, like acrobatics) can work with his magic and his bardic performance.
But "go old school" doesn't work as a reason to make a bard someone who doesn't perform. That's like making a fighter class that is not necessarily combat-oriented.
My proposition: The bard class, i.e. what you find in the core rulebook in the Classes chapter, will be a class with magical abilities based on performance.
Anyone wanting to capture some old school feeling can play a fighter/rogue/druid/Fochluran Lyrist.
I don't know how many times I have to say this:
I have not suggested the removal of Bardic Music. I have suggested a minor flavor change to spellcasting, which many people have said they find desirable. Please actually read the thread before posting!
In the odd chance no one has mentioned this before, PLEASE catagorize the Bardic performance abilities as Mind Affecting effects, which they clearly are. Secondly, please catagorize the 20th level Bard performance ability as a Death Effect also, which it clearly is.
I don't know how many times I have to say this:
I have not suggested the removal of Bardic Music. I have suggested a minor flavor change to spellcasting, which many people have said they find desirable. Please actually read the thread before posting!
Are you always this rude?
Anyway, I was referring to the bard class as a whole, not just bardic performance. I say that bardic magic should be based on his performances, just like the bardic performance abilities.
Bards aren't wizard/rogues or anything. They don't do wizardly spellcasting in addition to some performing. Their magical abilities come from their music. And that is as it should be. Bards are bards.
I think how he casts now is fine. A bard is about preformace and music. I find the current bard fills that role fine.
I would like more music to choose from, beyond that some clarification on which bardic musics need concentration would be nice.
Beyond that, inspire courage states that it requires concentration reducing the person that is playing the bard to saying round after round "I keep chanting... and I move here." if he wants to keep the effect going, not something that's terribly fun.
well it does last a few rounds after ya stop
True but if you want to start it up again that's another full round action before it gets going, just for another 5 round buff. besides how often is the party going to stay within 30 feet of the bard to get these bonuses when some area of effect spell/effect could come flying in at any time?
Like many powers this was written with a dungeon crawl mindset
I've been playing in RotR and we are regularly spread out enough that it can be a real problem getting off area buffing spells or effects. However our party is a bit odd currently we are overloaded with players: 5~9 PCs any given night if I remember right we have 2 druids, 2 wizards, 1 arcane trickster, 1 barbarian, 1 dwarven defender, 1 arcane archer, 1 cleric if everyone shows up.
However even at our smallest we had 2 druids 2 wizards and both meatshields and we spread out alot. Maybe it's just a local thing.
sometimes my players spread out. Alot has to do with group make up and spacing. I know when i last ran a bard it seems inspire got used for defensive holding actions more then run em down and have at em style one's
Are you always this rude?
I apologize; I misread your post. My frustration was not with you specifically, but with people in this and similiar threads who have posted reflexivly, believing we meant to remove any performance aspect, without giving the thread a close reading.
I have no problems with expanding on bardic music, so any type of perform (maybe even things that can work as perform, like acrobatics) can work with his magic and his bardic performance.
But "go old school" doesn't work as a reason to make a bard someone who doesn't perform. That's like making a fighter class that is not necessarily combat-oriented.
That sounded to me like you were tlking about a performance-less bard, and not about the nature of bardic spell casting. I overreacted.
I support the current bard class's tie to performance, because that is what a bard is supposed to be. Bard doesn't mean "a guy who trained a bit of magic as a renaisance man and swordplay in a fencing school." Bard is a performer and creator of the arts.
You talk about what the bard is "supposed" to be, but an equal number of us respectfully disagree. We think the bard is "supposed" to be more like its 2E predecessor, and we don't feel the complicated multiclass you suggest is an adequate substitute. The bard has two cores: versatility and performance. We believe the bard isn't one or the other of the things you mentioned, she's all of them. She's a renaissance woman who knows a little of everything---the best artists always are. We very much dislike the flavor of Mystic Performer. We don't want to deny it to you, but we want an equally valid option for ourselves.
Right now, people from both sides are working on a compromise mechanic in the thread I posted above, The Bard as Both a Musician and Jack Of All Trades. Why don't you check it out, and if you feel you have something to add, contribute?
Are you always this rude?I apologize;
All right, water under the bridge.
Still, I think that bardic magic should remain based on performance. That way, it makes sense that it's CHA based and doesn't require preparation, and the spell list still fits.
If you said that his magic was due to loremastery, It would make more sense to work like wizard magic - i.e. with preparation, with a spellbook, based on INT, and with a different spell-list.
I think that's too much to change for a revision. The basic bard should stick to his magic the way it is, and that makes much more sense as performance magic.
The other idea would make a decent variant class (though I think the spell list might have to be retooled - do we give them access to all wiazard magic?)
Still, I'd love to see an option to make performance central to the character but I'd like there to be other options as well. I think it would refresh the much maligned bard.Agreed. Those of us with Celtic heritage probably have a soft spot for the fabled warrior-poets, whom I believe were the initial model for the 1st Ed. Bard.
AFAIK Finnish myths presented in Kalevala were also a major influence for bard class (or at least most of the characters in that book are full or multiclassed bards).
And there knowledge is power, and the magic comes from that. If you have understanding of a thing, you have power over it (for example knowing "birth of iron" allows you to cure wounds made by iron weapons). This is somewhat tied to truename magic in other cultures...anyway: words are power.
Music, however, is only a tool to handle the mystical knowledge and memorize it better, so most bard spells according to this tradition have longer casting times but only somatic components.
Music is not power, so oratory is perfectly acceptable form of presenting that bardic knowledge (and typical minstrel-type bards would probably be dismissed as singers of children's ditties or maids' tunes, but in no possession of true power). The biggest thing music has going for itself is that information is easier to memorize on songs.
Anyway, to show the diversity, Väinämoinen and Louhi are both sage-bards (either full bards or multiclassed druid-bards), and leaders of their communities (and at least Väinämoinen knows his way with a sword too), Lemminkäinen is a multiclassed fighter/bard (with low WIS too), his mother is a healer-bard, Ilmarinen is an artificer-bard...
Anyway, to show the diversity, Väinämoinen and Louhi are both sage-bards (either full bards or multiclassed druid-bards), and leaders of their communities (and at least Väinämoinen knows his way with a sword too), Lemminkäinen is a multiclassed fighter/bard (with low WIS too), his mother is a healer-bard, Ilmarinen is an artificer-bard...
...taking this pondering further:
Väinämoinen, epic bard, high int and cha, decent str, dex, con, middlish wis. Leadership feat.Louhi, epic bard/druid (enough for wild shape, at least), high int and cha, decent wis, unknown str, dex, con. Leadership feat.
Lemminkäinen, epic fighter/bard, high str, dex, con, cha, middlish int, low wis. Leadership feat.
Ilmarinen, epic artificer/bard, high str, con, int, decent cha, low wis, unknown dex.
Kullervo, ranger or ranger/bard, high str, dex, con, decent int, cha, middlish wis.
As is obvious, WIS was a popular dump stat in this campaign...